{thank you for voting}
The earth is warming up... DUH!
but why is the earth warming?
my goal in this debate it to fight off the common theory that we are the couse of Global Warming.

Global warming is a corner stone issue with many news media programs,
as well as a corner stone issue for the democratic party.

I had the privilege of talking to a scientist who testified as well as 6 others in front of congress.
He says, and i quote "The largest production of Carbon Dioxide in the world isn't even close to use, its in the ocean, its plankton."

He also told me that we have very little if any effect on the worlds climate.
he says that the second largest production comes from south America in the rain forest (in which he spent 10 years in studying). He says that the trees in the rain forest store carbon dioxide for hard times when they need energy, when the hard times don't come and the tree is fully grown they let out the carbon dioxide.

To win this debate, I simply have to show that man has at least some positive effect on the average global surface temperatures.

1. We create a lot of greenhouse gases that absorb infrared.
It's a known fact that the greenhouse effect contributes greatly to the surface temperature of the earth. Basically, the atmosphere absorbs radiation from the sun and from the earth, and it radiates some of this heat outward. Much of this heat from the atmosphere reaches the earth again, heating the earth further.
By increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as water vapor and CO2, we increase the amount of energy the atmosphere absorbs from the earth (energy that would otherwise be sent out into space), which increases the amount of radiation the atmosphere emits, which increases the average global surface temperature of the earth.

Now, I will show that human activity does indeed increase the concentrations of key greenhouse gases, such as CO2, CH4, and H20.

CO2 increases have had the largest impact.
The very fact that we are animals means we give off CO2 (from respiration).
We burn fossil fuels that would otherwise not be burned. A byproduct of this combustion is CO2.
We also destroy more plant life than we create (most notably, for contruction of buildings).

Perhaps the entirety of the increasing CO2 trend is not to be blamed on humans. However, it is undeniable that at least some of the increased CO2 is due to humans.
Increasing CO2 levels, as well as increasing levels of other greenhouse gases like CH4 and atmospheric H20, leads to a more powerful greenhouse effect.
A more powerful greenhouse effect leads to higher global average temperatures.

Yes, the entirety of the current warming trend may not be the fault of humans. However, humans DO have a global warming effect. Other natural sources have global warming effects too right now, but that does not change the fact that Man has indeed made some amount of global warming.

Therefore, it is false that man-made global warming is a hoax. Even the claim that umans are the ONLY source of global warming trends is not a hoax, it is more likely simply wrong. A hoax is something that is said or done to INTENTIONALLY trick people. Those who claim that humans are the only source of global warming trends are simply ignorant of the facts, they are not intentionally attempting to trick people. To show even this, my opponent would have to provide a motive.

However, that is assuming that "Man-Made Global warming" refers only to the belief that the global warming trend is wholly the fault of humanity. However, I have shown that this need not be the case. Man-made global warming does exist, it's just not the only contributor to the overall global warming trend.

My opponent stated this:
We create a lot of greenhouse gases that absorb infrared.
It's a known fact that the greenhouse effect contributes greatly to the surface temperature of the earth. Basically, the atmosphere absorbs radiation from the sun and from the earth, and it radiates some of this heat outward. Much of this heat from the atmosphere reaches the earth again, heating the earth further.
By increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as water vapor and CO2, we increase the amount of energy the atmosphere absorbs from the earth (energy that would otherwise be sent out into space), which increases the amount of radiation the atmosphere emits, which increases the average global surface temperature of the earth.

My Response:
My opponent Obviously forgot to cite his sources therefor i must see his case as an opinion without the slightest bit of scientific evidence to back himself up. I will argue as if he cited his sources and they were deemed true. He says that we create alot of greenhouse gases that absorb infrared, yes this is true but The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...)

My opponent was almost correct in saying it isn't a hoax, but not quite.
I agree however, it is more like a religion. Many people have put it in front of far more important issues such as national security, education, abortion and many more. If we were to reduce our emissions Al Gore has even stated it would have no effect. He claims it is too late. But if this is the case it makes me reverse the statement. In saying that reducing emissions isn't going to do anything, doesn't that mean that Emissions are not a variable? Its as simple as math, 1 + 1 + 0 = 2 take out the 0 and nothing changes, add in a zero and guess what... nothing changes.

My opponent claims that there is no evidence linking increased CO2 in the atmosphere to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

However, there is indeed. CO2 indeed does absorb infrared light. This isn't just something someone made up. We know, from lab tests and what not, exactly what wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation CO2 absorbs.

Located near the bottom of the picture there is a "CO2" row. You'll notice that most of the absorbtion of CO2 is in the infrared spectrum, with peaks in major portions of the upgoing thermal radiation. However, at these peaks, all the radiation is already absorbed, so adding more CO2 is negligible here. However, you'll notice that at some points where the CO2 graph is non-zero and somewhat small, a great portion of those wavelengths are not absorbed by the atmosphere yet. These areas are key for heat escaping our planet - and increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases the absorbtion at these levels.

The data for the graph is from LINEPAK, which uses ray-tracing and some other mathematically-accurate stuff. Here's a page about it.http://www.gats-inc.com...

My opponent claims tat we have not found any evidence that CO2 causes global warming. However, I just now fulfilled that: LINEPAK's algorithm's don't just randomly decide how much a given molecule absorbs of each wavelength, it uses actual science and computational power to arrive at an answer.

Even so, "You don't have any evidence to back your claims" is a very weak argument when you provide no evidence for your own arguments. My opponent has given us zero evidence that CO2 does not have a causal relationship with an increased greenhouse effect and therefore increased global average temperature.

Lastly, I will respond to the Al Gore reference. Al Gore supposedly said that we were past the point of no return as far as CO2 emmissions are concerned (though I saw no source listed for this, so by my opponent's logic, I should just ignore this point, though I won't). My opponent concludes from this that CO2 emmissions must therefore have zero effect on global warming.

Consider the following:

There is a train, 5 miles from a dead-end on the track (we'll say it's at a cliff, to make it exciting). This train is going very fast. It would probably be wise at some point soon for this train to use the brakes. However, if it puts off using its brakes for long enough, it will reach the point of no return, where even braking as hard as possible, it will still go over that bridge. That is what Gore was implying - that we are a runaway train, too close to the bridge for our brakes to really matter - all we'll be doing is delaying the inevitable. However, I myself disagree with Gore. His conclusion here is likely based on hasty assumptions. Still, even if he was correct, this does not show that CO2 emmissions have no effect on global warming.

OK, Go to the site my opponent cited... notice on Wikipedia,at the top of the page it says "edit this page"... a team of scientist didn't create this page therefor we must assume that a team of average people created this. Don't average people tend to pick sides and go with the Flo?
And now i get to target Linepak (which is flawed).Actually, LINEPAK + HITRAN2004 show a CO2 blip around 2 um that clearly has an influence on the tai end of water vapor from 1.5-1.9, a clear signal with no water vapor overlap of CO2 and nitrous oxide at 4.5-6 and a clear overlap of much of the 12-15 CO2 with water vapor's tail end of its 12-70 range. Over the entire 68.8 um range, it's obvious (at least visually) that we can directly account about about 3 um to CO2 So over the entire absorption/scattering range, carbon dioxide is more like around 5% (if we include visible and UV) for downgoing solar radiation and upgoing thermal radiation. Still, we have the problem that this is further clouded by, well, clouds. Which aren't included. And of course, radiative forcings and feedbacks, and few other things. My opponent is changing the subject to decide what effect CO2 emissions have on the environment, i don't argue that they have an effect, but the amount we as humans put out have no effect on the environment.
To close this statement i would like to show you a newspaper article.

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
Email Tim
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

My opponent has done his best to confuse the readers, and now I must remedy the situation.

Indeed, there are many other factors, besides the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, that determine temperatures. My opponent lists clouds, etc. However, he has NOT shown that humans have had any cooling effect on the environment through any of these other factors, therefore it is useless to talk about them.

He has also claimed that the amount of CO2 we put into the atmospere is not enough to have ANY effect on global average temperatures. This is blatantly false. CO2 has aborbsion bands in areas where radiation is not yet fully absorbed by the atmosphere - this means that as far as the greenhouse effect alone is concerned, increasing the global average CO2 in the atmosphere by any significant amount will indeed lead to an increase in temperatures. This is because it makes the greenhouse effect, one of the key warmers of our planet, more powerful. We put enough CO2 into the atmosphere that it does increase global average CO2 concentrations.

Let us go through what has been shown.

1. Humans increase the global average concentration of CO2.
2. An increase in average global CO2 leads to an increase in the intensity of the greenhouse effect.
3. An increasingly intense greenhouse effect raises global average temperatures.
4. VIA 1,2, and 3, humans raise global average temperatures.
5. My opponent has failed to show any way in which we lower global average temperatures, so the effect should be consiered a net positive.
6. There is some portion of global warming, the increasing trend in global average temperatures, that can be attributed to humans. This portion is called man-made global warming.
7. Since man-made global warming is real, it is not a hoax.

Also, I think we could all care less for my opponent's newspaper copypasta. If you've got a point to make, make it and cite a source if you need to, don't just copy and paste a ten page article.

Those that DENY climate change have an agenda. (Oil companies, car manufacturers, airlines...)

It only takes one scientist who studies worms to say they don't agree and there's no consensus.

All first-world countries (except the USA) have now signed up to they Kyoto Protocol (including Russia and Australia).
The USA produces twice the CO2 per capita as the Europeans do.
China produces one third the CO2 per capita the USA does, they also have more solar water heating than any other country. They know they're polluting and are trying to do something about it.

It doesn't matter how cold it is in one part of the world.
Only the average global temperature matters, and it's increasing. http://data.giss.nasa.gov...

Those that STUDY climate change as you state have an agenda. That is how they get their funding for their studies. There is just as many out there that say Global Warming is not happening as there is saying it is. Until the scientists can agree, there is no consensus unless all agree and they haven't. Is pollution a problem, yes. Until the rest of the world is ready to take care of it we can only do so much in the US. We have taken the lead on all of this and are doing well to cut down on pollutants. So why isn't China being held accountable, or Russia for that matter. Again today on my way to work I hear that we are in for one of the coldest, snowiest winters in some time. The south will be quite wet and cold as well. So where is this warming at if it is such a big world problem?

I find it very interesting that information just released on September 13, maybe the 12 that says we will be in for cooler than normal temps over then next 10 to 15 years. So I will have to say that I agree that it is a hoax. I find it amazing that Al Gore was the first to bring this up and the first to setup a company to purchase these credits. My question is I believe he is stealing if that is the case. How can he sell something that apparently belongs to you or I when aren't using them? If we aren't using them, aren't they ours to sell? How can they be his unless we sell them to him? Its like buying a cord of wood for your home, then you install a natural gas heater. Is the left over wood still yours to sell or are you going to let someone come in pick up and sell without paying you for it?

This video will of course automatically be dismissed and no scientific rebuttal will be given as to why it should be dismissed other than political posturing because it contradicts the global warming theory and the science behind it.